FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 126376. November 20, 2003.]

SPOUSES BERNARDO BUENAVENTURA and CONSOLACION

JOAQUIN, SPOUSES JUANITO EDRA and NORA JOAQUIN, SPOUSES
RUFINO VALDOZ and EMMA JOAQUIN, and NATIVIDAD JOAQUIN ,
petitioners, vs . COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES LEONARDO JOAQUIN
and FELICIANA LANDRITO, SPOUSES FIDEL JOAQUIN and
CONCHITA BERNARDO, SPOUSES TOMAS JOAQUIN and SOLEDAD
ALCORAN, SPOUSES ARTEMIO JOAQUIN and SOCORRO ANGELES,
SPOUSES ALEXANDER MENDOZA and CLARITA JOAQUIN, SPOUSES
TELESFORO CARREON and FELICITAS JOAQUIN, SPOUSES DANILO
VALDOZ and FE JOAQUIN, and SPOUSES GAVINO JOAQUIN and LEA
ASIS , respondents.

Zosimo G. Linato for petitioners.

Gregorio M Velasquez for private respondents.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioners sought to declare as null and void ab initio certain deeds of sale of real
property executed by their parents, respondents Leonardo Joaquin and Feliciana Landrito,
in favor of their co-respondents-children and the corresponding certi cates of title issued
in their names. They alleged that the sale of the subject properties impaired their legitime
and that there was no actual valid consideration for the deeds of sale, and even assuming
that there was indeed consideration, the price was grossly inadequate. The trial court ruled
in favor of the respondents and dismissed the complaint. The trial court ruled that
petitioners had no valid cause of action against respondents since there can be no
legitime to speak of prior to the death of their parents. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
a rmed the decision of the trial court. The appellate court ruled that petitioners have no
legal capacity to challenge the validity of the subject deeds since they are not parties
thereto and are not principally or subsidiarily bound thereby.
The Supreme Court a rmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals. According to the
Court, petitioners do not have any legal interest over the properties subject of the Deeds of
Sale. Petitioners' right to their parents' properties is merely inchoate and vests only upon
their parents' death. While still living, the parents of petitioners are free to dispose of their
properties and the sale of the lots to their siblings does not affect the value of their
parents' estate because while the sale of the lots reduced the estate, the cash of
equivalent value replaced the lots taken from the estate. The Court also ruled that payment
of the price has nothing to do with the perfection of the contract. Failure to pay the
consideration is different from lack of consideration. The former results in a right to
demand the ful llment or cancellation of the obligation under an existing valid contract,
while the latter prevents the existence of a valid contract. In the case at bar, petitioners
failed to show that the prices in the Deeds of Sale were absolutely simulated. On the issue
of inadequacy of the price or consideration, the Court did not disturb the ruling of the trial
court that the lots were sold for a valid consideration, and that the respondents-children
actually paid the purchase price stipulated in their respective Deeds of Sale. Said factual
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 finding by the trial court is binding on the Court.

SYLLABUS

1.REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS; PARTIES IN

INTEREST; PETITIONERS DO NOT HAVE LEGAL INTEREST OVER THE PROPERTIES
SUBJECT OF THE DEEDS OF SALE; RIGHT TO THEIR PARENTS' PROPERTIES IS MERELY
INCHOATE AND VESTS ONLY UPON THEIR PARENTS' DEATH. — It is evident from the
records that petitioners are interested in the properties subject of the Deeds of Sale, but
they have failed to show any legal right to the properties: The trial and appellate courts
should have dismissed the action for this reason alone. An action must be prosecuted in
the name of the real party-in-interest. Petitioners do not have any legal interest over the
properties subject of the Deeds of Sale. As the appellate court stated, petitioners' right to
their parents' properties is merely inchoate and vests only upon their parents' death. While
still living, the parents of petitioners are free to dispose of their properties. In their
overzealousness to safeguard their future legitime, petitioners forget that theoretically, the
sale of the lots to their siblings does not affect the value of their parents' estate. While the
sale of the lots reduced the estate, cash of equivalent value replaced the lots taken from
the estate.
2.CIVIL LAW; SPECIAL CONTRACTS; SALE; A CONSENSUAL CONTRACT; PAYMENT
OF THE PRICE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PERFECTION OF CONTRACT. — A contract
of sale is not a real contract, but a consensual contract. As a consensual contract, a
contract of sale becomes a binding and valid contract upon the meeting of the minds as to
price. If there is a meeting of the minds of the parties as to the price, the contract of sale is
valid, despite the manner of payment, or even the breach of that manner of payment. If the
real price is not stated in the contract, then the contract of sale is valid but subject to
reformation. If there is no meeting of the minds of the parties as to the price, because the
price stipulated in the contract is simulated, then the contract is void. Article 1471 of the
Civil Code states that if the price in a contract of sale is simulated, the sale is void. It is not
the act of payment of price that determines the validity of a contract of sale. Payment of
the price has nothing to do with the perfection of the contract. Payment of the price goes
into the performance of the contract. Failure to pay the consideration is different from lack
of consideration. The former results in a right to demand the ful llment or cancellation of
the obligation under an existing valid contract while the latter prevents the existence of a
valid contract. AcDHCS

3.ID.; ID.; ID.; PETITIONERS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE PRICES IN THE DEEDS OF
SALE WERE ABSOLUTELY SIMULATED. — Petitioners failed to show that the prices in the
Deeds of Sale were absolutely simulated. To prove simulation, petitioners presented
Emma Joaquin Valdoz's testimony stating that their father, respondent Leonardo Joaquin,
told her that he would transfer a lot to her through a deed of sale without need for her
payment of the purchase price. The trial court did not nd the allegation of absolute
simulation of price credible. Petitioners' failure to prove absolute simulation of price is
magni ed by their lack of knowledge of their respondent siblings' nancial capacity to buy
the questioned lots. On the other hand, the Deeds of Sale which petitioners presented as
evidence plainly showed the cost of each lot sold. Not only did respondents' minds meet
as to the purchase price, but the real price was also stated in the Deeds of Sale. As of the
ling of the complaint, respondent siblings have also fully paid the price to their
respondent father.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 4.ID.; ID.; ID.; NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE PRICE BE EQUAL TO THE EXACT VALUE
OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SALE. — Petitioners failed to prove any of the instances
mentioned in Articles 1355 and 1470 of the Civil Code which would invalidate, or even
affect, the Deeds of Sale. Indeed, there is no requirement that the price be equal to the
exact value of the subject matter of sale. All the respondents believed that they received
the commutative value of what they gave. Moreover, the factual ndings of the appellate
court are conclusive on the parties and carry greater weight when they coincide with the
factual ndings of the trial court. This Court will not weigh the evidence all over again
unless there has been a showing that the ndings of the lower court are totally devoid of
support or are clearly erroneous so as to constitute serious abuse of discretion. In the
instant case, the trial court found that the lots were sold for a valid consideration, and that
the defendant children actually paid the purchase price stipulated in their respective Deeds
of Sale. Actual payment of the purchase price by the buyer to the seller is a factual nding
that is now conclusive upon us.

DECISION

CARPIO , J : p

The Case
This is a petition for review on certiorari 1 to annul the Decision 2 dated 26 June 1996
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 41996. The Court of Appeals a rmed the
Decision 3 dated 18 February 1993 rendered by Branch 65 of the Regional Trial Court of
Makati ("trial court") in Civil Case No. 89-5174. The trial court dismissed the case after it
found that the parties executed the Deeds of Sale for valid consideration and that the
plaintiffs did not have a cause of action against the defendants.
The Facts
The Court of Appeals summarized the facts of the case as follows:
Defendant spouses Leonardo Joaquin and Feliciana Landrito are the
parents of plaintiffs Consolacion, Nora, Emma and Natividad as well as of
defendants Fidel, Tomas, Artemio, Clarita, Felicitas, Fe, and Gavino, all surnamed
JOAQUIN. The married Joaquin children are joined in this action by their
respective spouses.
Sought to be declared null and void ab initio, are certain deeds of sale of
real property executed by defendant parents Leonardo Joaquin and Feliciana
Landrito in favor of their co-defendant children and the corresponding certi cates
of title issued in their names, to wit:

1.Deed of Absolute Sale covering Lot 168-C-7 of subdivision plan (LRC)

Psd-256395 executed on 11 July 1978, in favor of defendant
Felicitas Joaquin, for a consideration of P6,000.00 (Exh. "C"),
pursuant to which TCT No. [36113/T-172] was issued in her name
(Exh. "C-1");
2.Deed of Absolute Sale covering Lot 168-I-3 of subdivision plan (LRC)
Psd-256394 executed on 7 June 1979, in favor of defendant Clarita
Joaquin, for a consideration of P1[2],000.00 (Exh. "D"), pursuant to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 which TCT No. S-109772 was issued in her name (Exh. "D-1");
3.Deed of Absolute Sale covering Lot 168-I-1 of subdivision plan (LRC)
Psd-256394 executed on 12 May 1988, in favor of defendant
spouses Fidel Joaquin and Conchita Bernardo, for a consideration
of P54,[3]00.00 (Exh. "E"), pursuant to which TCT No. 155329 was
issued to them (Exh. "E-1");

4.Deed of Absolute Sale covering Lot 168-I-2 of subdivision plan (LRC)

Psd-256394 executed on 12 May 1988, in favor of defendant
spouses Artemio Joaquin and Socorro Angeles, for a consideration
of P[54,3]00.00 (Exh. "F"), pursuant to which TCT No. 155330 was
issued to them (Exh. "F-1"); and
5.Absolute Sale of Real Property covering Lot 168-C-4 of subdivision plan
(LRC) Psd-256395 executed on 9 September 1988, in favor of
Tomas Joaquin, for a consideration of P20,000.00 (Exh. "G"),
pursuant to which TCT No. 157203 was issued in her name (Exh. "G-
1").
[6.Deed of Absolute Sale covering Lot 168-C-1 of subdivision plan (LRC)
Psd-256395 executed on 7 October 1988, in favor of Gavino
Joaquin, for a consideration of P25,000.00 (Exh. "K"), pursuant to
which TCT No. 157779 was issued in his name (Exh. "K-1").]
In seeking the declaration of nullity of the aforesaid deeds of sale and
certificates of title, plaintiffs, in their complaint, aver:
xxx xxx xxx
The deeds of sale, Annexes "C," "D," "E," "F," and "G," [and "K"] are simulated
as they are, are NULL AND VOID AB INITIO because —
a)Firstly , there was no actual valid consideration for the deeds of sale . . .
over the properties in litis;
b)Secondly , assuming that there was consideration in the sums re ected
in the questioned deeds, the properties are more than three-fold
times more valuable than the measly sums appearing therein;

c)Thirdly , the deeds of sale do not re ect and express the true intent of the
parties (vendors and vendees); and
d)Fourthly , the purported sale of the properties in litis was the result of a
deliberate conspiracy designed to unjustly deprive the rest of the
compulsory heirs (plaintiffs herein) of their legitime.

xxx xxx xxx

Necessarily, and as an inevitable consequence, Transfer Certificates of
Title Nos. 36113/T-172, S-109772, 155329, 155330, 157203 [and 157779]
issued by the Registrar of Deeds over the properties in litis . . . are NULL
AND VOID AB INITIO.

Defendants, on the other hand aver (1) that plaintiffs do not have a cause
of action against them as well as the requisite standing and interest to assail their
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 titles over the properties in litis; (2) that the sales were with su cient
considerations and made by defendants parents voluntarily, in good faith, and
with full knowledge of the consequences of their deeds of sale; and (3) that the
certi cates of title were issued with su cient factual and legal basis. 4
(Emphasis in the original)

The Ruling of the Trial Court

Before the trial, the trial court ordered the dismissal of the case against defendant
spouses Gavino Joaquin and Lea Asis. 5 Instead of ling an Answer with their co-
defendants, Gavino Joaquin and Lea Asis led a Motion to Dismiss. 6 In granting the
dismissal to Gavino Joaquin and Lea Asis, the trial court noted that "compulsory heirs have
the right to a legitime but such right is contingent since said right commences only from
the moment of death of the decedent pursuant to Article 777 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines." 7
After trial, the trial court ruled in favor of the defendants and dismissed the
complaint. The trial court stated:
In the rst place, the testimony of the defendants, particularly that of the . .
. father will show that the Deeds of Sale were all executed for valuable
consideration. This assertion must prevail over the negative allegation of
plaintiffs.

And then there is the argument that plaintiffs do not have a valid cause of
action against defendants since there can be no legitime to speak of prior to the
death of their parents. The court nds this contention tenable. In determining the
legitime, the value of the property left at the death of the testator shall be
considered (Art. 908 of the New Civil Code). Hence, the legitime of a compulsory
heir is computed as of the time of the death of the decedent. Plaintiffs therefore
cannot claim an impairment of their legitime while their parents live.

All the foregoing considered, this case is DISMISSED.

In order to preserve whatever is left of the ties that should bind families
together, the counterclaim is likewise DISMISSED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED. 8

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals a rmed the decision of the trial court. The appellate court
ruled:
To the mind of the Court, appellants are skirting the real and decisive issue
in this case, which is, whether . . . they have a cause of action against appellees.
Upon this point, there is no question that plaintiffs-appellants, like their
defendant brothers and sisters, are compulsory heirs of defendant spouses,
Leonardo Joaquin and Feliciana Landrito, who are their parents. However, their
right to the properties of their defendant parents, as compulsory heirs, is merely
inchoate and vests only upon the latter's death. While still alive, defendant
parents are free to dispose of their properties, provided that such dispositions are
not made in fraud of creditors.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Plaintiffs-appellants are de nitely not parties to the deeds of sale in
question. Neither do they claim to be creditors of their defendant parents.
Consequently, they cannot be considered as real parties in interest to assail the
validity of said deeds either for gross inadequacy or lack of consideration or for
failure to express the true intent of the parties. In point is the ruling of the
Supreme Court in Velarde, et al. vs. Paez, et al., 101 SCRA 376, thus:

The plaintiffs are not parties to the alleged deed of sale and are not
principally or subsidiarily bound thereby; hence, they have no legal
capacity to challenge their validity.
Plaintiffs-appellants anchor their action on the supposed impairment of
their legitime by the dispositions made by their defendant parents in favor of their
defendant brothers and sisters. But, as correctly held by the court a quo, "the
legitime of a compulsory heir is computed as of the time of the death of the
decedent. Plaintiffs therefore cannot claim an impairment of their legitime while
their parents live."
With this posture taken by the Court, consideration of the errors assigned
by plaintiffs-appellants is inconsequential.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs
against plaintiffs-appellants.
SO ORDERED. 9

Hence, the instant petition.

Issues
Petitioners assign the following as errors of the Court of Appeals:
1.THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE
CONVEYANCE IN QUESTION HAD NO VALID CONSIDERATION.
2.THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT EVEN
ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS A CONSIDERATION, THE SAME IS
GROSSLY INADEQUATE.
3.THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE DEEDS OF
SALE DO NOT EXPRESS THE TRUE INTENT OF THE PARTIES.
4.THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE
CONVEYANCE WAS PART AND PARCEL OF A CONSPIRACY AIMED AT
UNJUSTLY DEPRIVING THE REST OF THE CHILDREN OF THE
SPOUSES LEONARDO JOAQUIN AND FELICIANA LANDRITO OF THEIR
INTEREST OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES.
5.THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS
HAVE A GOOD, SUFFICIENT AND VALID CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS. 1 0
The Ruling of the Court
We find the petition without merit.
We will discuss petitioners' legal interest over the properties subject of the Deeds of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Sale before discussing the issues on the purported lack of consideration and gross
inadequacy of the prices of the Deeds of Sale.
Whether Petitioners have a legal interest
over the properties subject of the Deeds of Sale
Petitioners' Complaint betrays their motive for ling this case. In their Complaint,
petitioners asserted that the "purported sale of the properties in litis, was the result of a
deliberate conspiracy designed to unjustly deprive the rest of the compulsory heirs
(plaintiffs herein) of their legitime." Petitioners' strategy was to have the Deeds of Sale
declared void so that ownership of the lots would eventually revert to their respondent
parents. If their parents die still owning the lots, petitioners and their respondent siblings
will then co-own their parents' estate by hereditary succession. 1 1
It is evident from the records that petitioners are interested in the properties subject
of the Deeds of Sale, but they have failed to show any legal right to the properties. The trial
and appellate courts should have dismissed the action for this reason alone. An action
must be prosecuted in the name of the real party-in-interest. 1 2
[T]he question as to "real party-in-interest" is whether he is "the party who
would be bene ted or injured by the judgment, or the 'party entitled to the avails
of the suit.'"
xxx xxx xxx

In actions for the annulment of contracts, such as this action, the real
parties are those who are parties to the agreement or are bound either principally
or subsidiarily or are prejudiced in their rights with respect to one of the
contracting parties and can show the detriment which would positively result to
them from the contract even though they did not intervene in it (Ibañez v.
Hongkong & Shanghai Bank, 22 Phil. 572 [1912]) . . . .
These are parties with "a present substantial interest, as distinguished
from a mere expectancy or future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential
interest. . . . The phrase 'present substantial interest' more concretely is meant
such interest of a party in the subject matter of the action as will entitle him,
under the substantive law, to recover if the evidence is su cient, or that he has
the legal title to demand and the defendant will be protected in a payment to or
recovery by him." 1 3

Petitioners do not have any legal interest over the properties subject of the Deeds of
Sale. As the appellate court stated, petitioners' right to their parents' properties is merely
inchoate and vests only upon their parents' death. While still living, the parents of
petitioners are free to dispose of their properties. In their overzealousness to safeguard
their future legitime, petitioners forget that theoretically, the sale of the lots to their
siblings does not affect the value of their parents' estate. While the sale of the lots reduced
the estate, cash of equivalent value replaced the lots taken from the estate.

Whether the Deeds of Sale are void for lack of consideration

Petitioners assert that their respondent siblings did not actually pay the prices
stated in the Deeds of Sale to their respondent father. Thus, petitioners ask the court to
declare the Deeds of Sale void.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 A contract of sale is not a real contract, but a consensual contract. As a consensual
contract, a contract of sale becomes a binding and valid contract upon the meeting of the
minds as to price. If there is a meeting of the minds of the parties as to the price, the
contract of sale is valid, despite the manner of payment, or even the breach of that manner
of payment. If the real price is not stated in the contract, then the contract of sale is valid
but subject to reformation. If there is no meeting of the minds of the parties as to the
price, because the price stipulated in the contract is simulated, then the contract is void. 1 4
Article 1471 of the Civil Code states that if the price in a contract of sale is simulated, the
sale is void.
It is not the act of payment of price that determines the validity of a contract of sale.
Payment of the price has nothing to do with the perfection of the contract. Payment of the
price goes into the performance of the contract. Failure to pay the consideration is
different from lack of consideration. The former results in a right to demand the ful llment
or cancellation of the obligation under an existing valid contract while the latter prevents
the existence of a valid contract. 1 5
Petitioners failed to show that the prices in the Deeds of Sale were absolutely
simulated. To prove simulation, petitioners presented Emma Joaquin Valdoz's testimony
stating that their father, respondent Leonardo Joaquin, told her that he would transfer a lot
to her through a deed of sale without need for her payment of the purchase price. 1 6 The
trial court did not nd the allegation of absolute simulation of price credible. Petitioners'
failure to prove absolute simulation of price is magni ed by their lack of knowledge of
their respondent siblings' nancial capacity to buy the questioned lots. 1 7 On the other
hand, the Deeds of Sale which petitioners presented as evidence plainly showed the cost
of each lot sold. Not only did respondents' minds meet as to the purchase price, but the
real price was also stated in the Deeds of Sale. As of the ling of the complaint,
respondent siblings have also fully paid the price to their respondent father. 1 8
Whether the Deeds of Sale are void for gross inadequacy of price
Petitioners ask that assuming that there is consideration, the same is grossly
inadequate as to invalidate the Deeds of Sale.
Article 1355 of the Civil Code states:
Art. 1355.Except in cases speci ed by law, lesion or inadequacy of cause
shall not invalidate a contract, unless there has been fraud, mistake or undue
influence. (Emphasis supplied)

Article 1470 of the Civil Code further provides:

Art. 1470.Gross inadequacy of price does not affect a contract of sale,
except as may indicate a defect in the consent, or that the parties really intended
a donation or some other act or contract. (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioners failed to prove any of the instances mentioned in Articles 1355 and 1470
of the Civil Code which would invalidate, or even affect, the Deeds of Sale. Indeed, there is
no requirement that the price be equal to the exact value of the subject matter of sale. All
the respondents believed that they received the commutative value of what they gave. As
we stated in Vales v. Villa: 1 9
Courts cannot follow one every step of his life and extricate him from bad
bargains, protect him from unwise investments, relieve him from one-sided
contracts, or annul the effects of foolish acts. Courts cannot constitute
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 themselves guardians of persons who are not legally incompetent. Courts operate
not because one person has been defeated or overcome by another, but because
he has been defeated or overcome illegally . Men may do foolish things, make
ridiculous contracts, use miserable judgment, and lose money by them — indeed,
all they have in the world; but not for that alone can the law intervene and restore.
There must be, in addition, a violation of the law, the commission of what the law
knows as an actionable wrong, before the courts are authorized to lay hold of the
situation and remedy it. (Emphasis in the original)

Moreover, the factual ndings of the appellate court are conclusive on the parties
and carry greater weight when they coincide with the factual ndings of the trial court. This
Court will not weigh the evidence all over again unless there has been a showing that the
ndings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are clearly erroneous so as to
constitute serious abuse of discretion. 2 0 In the instant case, the trial court found that the
lots were sold for a valid consideration, and that the defendant children actually paid the
purchase price stipulated in their respective Deeds of Sale. Actual payment of the
purchase price by the buyer to the seller is a factual nding that is now conclusive upon us.
AcSEHT

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals in toto.

SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C .J ., Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago and Azcuna, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes
1.Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2.Penned by Associate Justice Artemio G. Tuquero, with Associate Justices Cancio C. Garcia
and Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., concurring.
3.Penned by Judge Salvador S. Abad Santos.
4.Rollo, pp. 29—31.

5.Records, pp. 189, 204.

6.Ibid., pp. 170—175.
7.Ibid., p. 189.
8.Ibid., pp. 355—356.
9.Rollo, pp. 32—33.

10.Ibid., pp. 16—17.

11.Article 1078 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states: "Where there are two or more heirs,
the whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such heirs,
subject to the payment of debts of the deceased."

12.Section 2, Rule 3, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

13.Kilosbayan v. Morato, 316 Phil. 652 (1995).
14.See Ladanga, et al. v. CA, et al., 216 Phil. 332 (1984). CESAR L. VILLANUEVA, PHILIPPINE
LAW ON SALES 54 (1998).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 15.Rido Montecillo v. Ignacia Reynes and Spouses Redemptor and Elisa Abucay , G.R. No.
138018, 26 July 2002.

16.TSN, 17 May 1991, pp. 497—498.

17.See Embrado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 51457, 27 June 1994, 233 SCRA 335; TSN, 17
May 1991, 497—498 (Emma Joaquin Valdoz); TSN, 22 May 1991, pp. 11—12, 20—21
(Nora Joaquin Edra).

18.TSN, 14 June 1991, p. 19 (Leonardo Joaquin); TSN, 30 October 1991, p. 6 (Fidel Joaquin);
TSN, 27 November 1991, p. 10 (Felicitas Joaquin Carreon); TSN, 7 January 1992, pp. 5—
6 (Artemio Joaquin); TSN, 31 January 1992, p. 12 (Clarity Joaquin Mendoza); TSN, 11
March 1992, pp. 16—17 (Tomas Joaquin).
19.35 Phil. 769 (1916).
20.Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138842, 18 October 2000, 343 SCRA 637.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com